From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Schaaf Subject: Re: target MARK in filter table? Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:02:03 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030713070203.GA1284@oknodo.bof.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Poltorak Serguei Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org > Why not to allow MARK packets in filter table? As i know it doesn't mangle > (change) the packet, it changes only information about it on local this > router. So, why not to use it widely in filter table? The fwmark influences the routing decision. In the filter table, the routing decision has already been made. This raises the following decision problem; - should rerouting be done when MARK is used in the filter table - or not? This decision problem will have different answers for different uses. Thus, an implementation must make an arbitrary decision. How would _you_ make that decision? I have no idea if that is the real reason why nobody made MARK for filter, but to me, it's a good reason not to make it. Arbitrary decisions always bite you, later. Traditional counterquestion: what do you want to accomplish, that lets you look for MARK in filter? best regards Patrick